- From: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 14:54:19 -0800
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: Jeff Muizelaar <jmuizelaar@mozilla.com>, "whatwg@whatwg.org" <whatwg@whatwg.org>
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > On Wed, 5 Mar 2014, Jeff Muizelaar wrote: > > On Mar 5, 2014, at 5:34 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > > > On Wed, 5 Mar 2014, Rik Cabanier wrote: > > >> > > >> To work around this, we could add a couple of constructor methods to > > >> the 2D context: > > >> > > >> Path2D createPath(); > > >> > > >> Creates a new empty Path object [...] > > > > > > This used to be how many Web APIs worked, but over the years we've > > > received enormous volumes of feedback to the effect that > > > constructor-based APIs are way better than factory-based APIs. Is > > > there no way we could at least have all the canvases within a Document > > > in Firefox use the same backend? It would be really unfortunate to > > > have to use factories here to get around an implementation detail in > > > one browser. > > > > The choice of backend depends on the size of the canvas. So it wouldn't > > be easy to have all canvases within a document use the same backend. > > Ah, ok. > > This makes a factory method somewhat less useful, because what if the > canvas changes size later? Do all the paths have to be "re-bound"? for optimal performance, yes. Rescaling a canvas is not that common of a scenario though. Maybe this hint would be useful for Chrome since they switch to software under certain circumstances too
Received on Wednesday, 5 March 2014 22:54:44 UTC